Ko Aotearoa Tēnei: a Report Into Claims Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy Affecting Māori Culture and Identity, Te Taumata

Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz

K o A o t e A r o A t ē n e i

Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz

Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz K o A o t e A r o A t ē n e i

A Report into Claims Concerning New Zealand Law and Policy Affecting Māori Culture and Identity

Te Taumata Tuarua Volume 2

W A I 2 6 2

W A I T A N G I T R I B U N A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 1

Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz

Cover design by Richard Thomson

National Library of New Zealand Cataloguing-in-Publication Data New Zealand. Waitangi Tribunal. Ko Aotearoa tēnei : a report into claims concerning New Zealand law and policy affecting Māori culture and identity. Te taumata tuarua. (Waitangi Tribunal report) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-869563-01-1 1. Treaty of Waitangi (1840). 2. Intellectual property—Government policy— New Zealand. 3. Cultural property—Government policy—New Zealand. 4. Environmental protection—Government policy—New Zealand. 5. Maori (New Zealand people)—Claims. [1. Mana whakairo hinengaro. reo 2. Tānemāhuta. reo 3. Kerēme (Tiriti o Waitangi). reo 4. Kaitiakitanga. reo 5. Ture putaiao. reo 6. Tiriti o Waitangi. reo] I. Title. II. Series. 323.1199442—dc 22

www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Published 2011 by Legislation Direct, Wellington, New Zealand Chapter 5 was previously published on the internet in 2010 in pre-publication format as Te Reo Māori Printed by Printlink, Wellington, New Zealand 15 14 13 12 11 1 2 3 4 5 Set in Adobe Minion Pro and Cronos Pro Opticals

Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz

uë e te mate kei hea täu wero, auë e te reinga kei hea töu wikitöria ? EngariA anö te kai atua, purea ka ora, tënä ko tënei mea ko te aroha Ka tü tonu ka tü tonu i roto rä i te whatumanawa Nä ia kua whakaurupä te aroha ki a koutou katoa I roto i tënä i tënä makiu makiu E koro mä e kui mä i te pö ahakoa kua mate e körero tonu ana koutou Ko ö koutou tinana kua maroke ko ä koutou kupu ia ka mau tonu Tae noa atu ki ngä reanga o ngä rau tau ka tü mai.

Mö tënei momo i a koutou he whärangi rau angiangi tä ënei reanga Hei whakanakonako i te pütea kupu tuku ki tö koutou I tö te ikeike kano i tö te rangiahua nui Heoi e kui e koro mä, kua oti te whatu i te käkahu hei täwharau I tö koutou reo i whakarere iho ai, i ä koutou whakaratonga Ki te ao i tukua iho ai ki ä koutou e ö koutou atua Okioki i tö koutou moenga roa.

h death, where is your sting ; grave, where is your victory ? TheO vigilant can deflect the evil intentions rife in the everyday world of people. But we know no remedy for the emptiness that remains after death’s grim harvest ; For its pain is etched on our hearts, and its memory is a curse to be borne by the living. Aroha turns the wise words you leave behind to gravestones around which the people will gather to mourn and remember.

Thus, although you, our elders, may pass into the night, your flesh to corrupt and fade, Yet you speak still. And we cling to your sacred teachings, generation upon living generation, These few feeble words too thin to convey our love and gratitude for the legacy you have bequeathed us, your living faces. Let what follows be a cloak that keeps warm your voices and safe your contributions to this troubled world. Rest now, in peace.

Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz

Clockwise from top left : Hema Nui a Tawhaki Witana, Te Witi McMath, Tama Poata, John Hippolite, Te Kapunga Matemoana Dewes, Apera Clark, and Hohepa Kereopa.

We have lost so many of the valued contributors to the Wai 262 inquiry. Of the origi- nal named claimants we have lost Hema Nui a Tawhaki Witana (Te Rarawa, also known as Del Wihongi), Te Witi McMath (Ngāti Wai), Tama Poata (Ngāti Porou), and John Hippolite (Ngāti Koata) ; only Haana Murray QSM CNZM (Ngāti Kurī) remains. Many of the kaumātua and kuia who appeared before us have also passed away, including three who became claimants later in the inquiry : Te Kapunga Matemoana Dewes LitD (Ngāti Porou), Apera Clark (Ngāti Kahungunu), and Hohepa Kereopa (Tūhoe). Our first presiding officer, the energetic and caring Judge Richard Kearney, died in 2005 after a long illness. We acknow ledge with respect and gratitude the unstinting vi Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz

Clockwise from top left : Judge Richard Kearney, the Right Reverend Bishop Manuhuia Bennett, Rangitihi John Tahuparae, Martin Dawson, Gina Rudland, David Jenkins, and Jolene Patuawa-Tuilave.

support given by his wife, Betty Kearney, through difficult times. Two esteemed Tribunal members assisting the panel as kaumātua advisers also died in the course of the inquiry : the Right Reverend Bishop Manuhuia Bennett CMG ONZ (in December 2001), a man of wisdom and compassion, and Rangitihi John Tahuparae MNZM (in October 2008), a renowned tohunga and teacher. We also lost four counsel during the course of the inquiry : Martin Dawson (appearing for Ngāti Koata), Gina Rudland and David Jenkins (appearing for Ngāti Porou), and Jolene Patuawa-Tuilave (appearing for several Crown research institutes). All taken at a young age, all powerful advocates and respected colleagues.

vii Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz

Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz

SHORT CONTeNTS

Volume 1

Letter of transmittal ...... xxiii

Abbreviations ...... xxix

Introduction ...... 1 IN.1 Introduction to the inquiry ...... 1 IN.2 The initial claim ...... 2 IN.3 The inquiry ...... 3 IN.4 Scope of this report ...... 10 IN.5 Key themes and principles ...... 12 IN.6 Structure and content of this report ...... 19 IN.7 Conclusion ...... 24

Chapter 1 : Taonga Works and Intellectual Property ...... 31 1.1 Introduction ...... 31 1.2 Te ao Māori and taonga works ...... 33 1.3 Te ao Pākehā and intellectual property ...... 46 1.4 Copyright, trade marks, and related rights in New Zealand ...... 54 1.5 Claimant, Crown, and interested parties’ arguments ...... 65 1.6 The rights of kaitiaki in taonga works and mātauranga Māori ...... 77 1.7 Reforms ...... 91 1.8 Conclusion ...... 97 1.9 Summary of recommendations ...... 99

Chapter 2 : Genetic and Biological Resources of Taonga Species ...... 113 2.1 Introduction ...... 113 2.2 Te ao Māori and taonga species...... 115 2.3 Te ao Pākehā, research science, and intellectual property ...... 136 2.4 Bioprospecting, genetic modification, and intellectual property : an overview ...... 140 2.5 Bioprospecting and taonga species ...... 144 2.6 Genetic modification and taonga species ...... 158 2.7 Intellectual property and taonga species ...... 169 2.8 The rights of kaitiaki in taonga species and mātauranga māori ...... 188 2.9 Reforms ...... 198 2.10 Conclusion ...... 208 2.11 Summary of recommendations ...... 210

ix Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Short Contents Chapter 3 : Relationship with the Environment ...... 235 3.1 Introduction ...... 235 3.2 Human impacts on the environment ...... 237 3.3 The Resource Management Act 1991 ...... 248 3.4 Claimant and Crown arguments ...... 263 3.5 Analysis ...... 267 3.6 Reforms ...... 280 3.7 Conclusion ...... 284 3.8 Summary of recommendations ...... 285

Chapter 4 : Taonga and the Conservation Estate ...... 297 4.1 Introduction ...... 297 4.2 The Department of Conservation...... 298 4.3 The claimants’ concerns ...... 299 4.4 Treaty principles in conservation legislation and guiding policy ...... 314 4.5 Māori involvement in conservation decision-making ...... 325 4.6 Customary use ...... 347 4.7 Commercial activity in the conservation estate ...... 359 4.8 National parks ...... 363 4.9 Kaitiaki conservation ...... 366 4.10 A final word to the executive ...... 371 4.11 Summary of recommendations ...... 372

Volume 2

Chapter 5 : Te Reo Māori ...... 387 5.1 Preface ...... 387 5.2 Introduction ...... 388 5.3 Historical decline and post-1986 revival ...... 393 5.4 The health of te reo in 2010 ...... 407 5.5 Analysis and conclusions ...... 441 5.6 Reforms ...... 470 5.7 The future ...... 477 5.8 Summary of recommendations ...... 477

Chapter 6 : When the Crown Controls Mātauranga Māori ...... 491 6.1 Introduction ...... 491 6.2 Taonga tūturu ...... 493 6.3 Arts, culture, and broadcasting ...... 514 6.4 Archives and libraries ...... 527 6.5 education ...... 542 6.6 Science ...... 561 x Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Short Contents 6.7 The special position of Te Puni Kōkiri ...... 573 6.8 Conclusion ...... 575 6.9 Summary of recommendations ...... 584

Chapter 7 : Rongoā Māori ...... 601 7.1 Introduction ...... 601 7.2 The Tohunga Suppression Act 1907 ...... 606 7.3 Contemporary government support for rongoā Māori ...... 627 7.4 Summary of recommendations ...... 657

Chapter 8 : The Making of International Instruments ...... 669 8.1 Introduction ...... 669 8.2 Some examples of international instruments ...... 670 8.3 Crown engagement policies and practices ...... 675 8.4 Claimant and Crown arguments ...... 678 8.5 Analysis ...... 680 8.6 Reforms ...... 684 8.7 Conclusion ...... 689 8.8 Summary of recommendations ...... 690

Chapter 9 : conclusion ...... 699 9.1 Finding a place for mātauranga Māori in New Zealand law and policy ...... 699 9.2 Our recommendations ...... 700 9.3 Perfecting the Treaty partnership ...... 714

Appendix ii : Select Record of Inquiry ...... 735

Glossary ...... 745

Select bibliography ...... 753

Picture credits ...... 771

xi Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz

Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz

LONG CONTeNTS

Abbreviations ...... xxiii

Chapter 5 : Te Reo Māori ...... 387 5.1 Preface ...... 387 5.2 Introduction ...... 388 5.2.1 The identification of issues ...... 388 5.2.2 The arguments of the parties ...... 389 (1) The claimants ...... 389 (a) Ngāti Porou ...... 389 (b) Ngāti Kahungunu ...... 390 (c) Te Tai Tokerau ...... 390 (d) Ngāti Koata ...... 391 (2) The Crown’s response ...... 391 5.2.3 Our extension beyond the statement of issues ...... 392 5.3 Historical decline and post-1986 revival ...... 393 5.3.1 Towards english monolingualism, 1900–75 ...... 393 5.3.2 The health of te reo in the mid-1970s ...... 394 5.3.3 Māori initiatives to save the language ...... 395 5.3.4 The inquiry into the te reo Māori claim ...... 396 5.3.5 The Maori Language Act 1987 ...... 397 5.3.6 Developments in education ...... 398 5.3.7 Developments in broadcasting ...... 400 5.3.8 Developments in public services and use ...... 402 5.3.9 Developments in community language support ...... 402 5.3.10 The Māori Language Strategy ...... 404 (1) Development ...... 404 (2) What the MLS says ...... 405 (3) How the MLS is implemented ...... 405 (a) Māori language education ...... 405 (b) Māori language broadcasting ...... 405 (c) Māori language arts ...... 405 (d) Māori language services ...... 405 (e) Māori language archives ...... 406 (f) Māori language community planning ...... 406 (g) Māori language policy, coordination, and monitoring ...... 406 (h) Public services provided in Māori ...... 406 (i) Māori language information ...... 406

xiii Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Short Contents (j) Whānau language development ...... 407 5.3.11 State funding for te reo Māori ...... 407 5.3.12 Conclusion ...... 407 5.4 The health of te reo in 2010 ...... 407 5.4.1 early childhood education ...... 407 5.4.2 Schools ...... 417 (1) Overview ...... 417 (2) Kura kaupapa ...... 417 (3) A shortfall of te reo teachers ...... 425 (4) Accounting for decline in te reo education at school ...... 427 5.4.3 Tertiary education ...... 429 5.4.4 Censuses and surveys ...... 431 (1) Pre-1996 national speaker estimates ...... 431 (2) Māori-language education demand surveys, 1992, 1995 ...... 431 (3) Census results, 1996–2006 ...... 435 (4) Projecting the census results forward ...... 436 (5) Te Puni Kōkiri’s 2006 survey ...... 438 (6) Discrepancies between the 2006 census and survey ...... 438 5.4.5 Conclusions : how healthy is te reo in 2010 ? ...... 439 5.5 Analysis and conclusions ...... 441 5.5.1 The Treaty interest ...... 441 (1) Te reo as a taonga ...... 441 (2) Tribal dialects as taonga ...... 442 5.5.2 Other valid interests ...... 442 5.5.3 The obligation of the Crown ...... 443 (1) Partnership ...... 450 (2) A Māori-speaking government ...... 451 (3) Wise policy ...... 451 (4) Appropriate resources ...... 452 5.5.4 The Māori obligation ...... 452 (1) Kōrero Māori ...... 452 (2) Partnership and compromise ...... 452 5.5.5 Conclusion : the Treaty interest in te reo and the obligations of the Crown and Māori ...... 453 5.5.6 Assessing the Crown’s Māori language effort ...... 453 (1) Partnership ...... 453 (2) A Māori-speaking government ...... 455 (a) Te reo in the courts ...... 455 (b) Te reo in Government agencies ...... 455 (c) Te reo and State broadcasters ...... 456 (d) Moving away from monolingualism ...... 457 (3) Wise policy ...... 458 (a) Past failures in Government policy ...... 458 (b) The MLS goals ...... 459 xiv Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Short Contents (i) Goal 1 ...... 459 (ii) Goal 2 ...... 460 (iii) Goal 3 ...... 460 (iv) Goal 4 ...... 461 (v) Goal 5 ...... 461 (vi) The MLS goals : conclusion ...... 462 (c) Implementation of the MLS ...... 462 (d) Crown support for tribal reo ...... 464 (4) Appropriate resources ...... 465 5.5.7 The Māori obligation ...... 466 (1) Kōrero Māori ...... 466 (2) Partnership and compromise ...... 468 5.5.8 Conclusion : the Crown’s performance ...... 468 5.6 Reforms ...... 470 5.6.1 Sectoral leadership by Te Taura Whiri ...... 471 5.6.2 Te Taura Whiri to function as a Crown–Māori partnership ...... 472 5.6.3 Te Taura Whiri to have greater powers ...... 473 (1) Central government ...... 473 (2) Local government, district health boards, and branches of centralgovernment in certain districts ...... 473 (3) education curricula ...... 476 (4) Schools ...... 476 (5) Teachers ...... 476 (6) Broadcasting ...... 476 5.6.4 Te Taura Whiri to offer dispute-resolution service ...... 476 5.6.5 An enhanced role for iwi ...... 476 5.6.6 Conclusion ...... 476 5.7 The future ...... 477 5.8 Summary of recommendations ...... 477

Chapter 6 : When the Crown Controls Mātauranga Māori ...... 491 6.1 Introduction ...... 491 6.2 Taonga tūturu ...... 493 6.2.1 Current legislation, policies, and funding ...... 493 (1) Te Papa ...... 493 (2) Protected objects ...... 495 6.2.2 The position of the claimants ...... 497 (1) Te Papa and other museums ...... 497 (2) Protected objects ...... 500 6.2.3 The position of the Crown ...... 501 (1) Te Papa and other museums ...... 501 (2) Protected objects ...... 503 6.2.4 Analysis ...... 504

xv Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Short Contents (1) Is there a Treaty interest in taonga tūturu ? ...... 504 (2) Are there other valid interests in regard to taonga tūturu ? ...... 507 (3) Conclusion and reforms ...... 508 (a) Te Papa ...... 509 (b) Taonga held in overseas collections ...... 510 (c) The protected objects regime ...... 511 6.2.5 Summary of findings and recommendations ...... 513 6.3 Arts, culture, and broadcasting ...... 514 6.3.1 Current legislation, policies, and funding ...... 515 (1) Creative New Zealand ...... 515 (2) Lottery Grants Board ...... 517 (3) Ministry for Culture and Heritage ...... 517 (4) Te Puni Kōkiri ...... 517 (5) New Zealand On Air ...... 518 (6) TVNZ...... 518 (7) Radio New Zealand ...... 520 6.3.2 The position of the claimants ...... 520 (1) Creative New Zealand ...... 520 (2) TVNZ ...... 521 6.3.3 The position of the Crown ...... 522 6.3.4 Analysis ...... 522 (1) Is there a Treaty interest in Māori arts, culture, and broadcasting ? ...... 522 (2) Are there other valid interests affected by the Crown’s subsidisation of Māori arts, culture, and broadcasting ? ...... 523 (3) Conclusion and reforms ...... 523 (a) The adequacy of Crown funding and policy for Māori arts and culture ...... 524 (b) Structural changes in the arts and culture funding sector ...... 525 (c) The adequacy of Crown funding and policy for marae improvements ...... 525 (d) The adequacy of Crown funding and policy for broadcasting ...... 526 6.3.5 Summary of findings and recommendations ...... 527 6.4 Archives and libraries ...... 527 6.4.1 Current legislation, policies, and funding ...... 527 (1) Departmental restructuring ...... 527 (2) Archives New Zealand ...... 528 (3) National Library ...... 530 (4) Television New Zealand ...... 532 (5) Radio New Zealand ...... 533 6.4.2 The position of the claimants ...... 533 (1) National Library and Archives New Zealand ...... 533 (2) Television New Zealand ...... 535 6.4.3 The position of the Crown ...... 535 6.4.4 Analysis ...... 537 xvi Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Short Contents (1) Is there a Treaty interest in mātauranga held by government archives and libraries ? ...... 537 (2) Are there other valid interests with regard to mātauranga in government archives and libraries ? ...... 538 (3) Conclusion and reforms ...... 540 6.4.5 Summary of findings and recommendations ...... 542 6.5 education ...... 542 6.5.1 Current legislation, policies, or funding ...... 543 (1) New Zealand Qualifications Authority ...... 543 (2) Ministry of education ...... 546 6.5.2 The position of the claimants ...... 549 (1) The New Zealand Qualifications Authority ...... 549 (2) Ministry of education ...... 551 6.5.3 The position of the Crown ...... 554 6.5.4 Analysis ...... 555 (1) Is there a Treaty interest in the Government’s supervision of the teaching of mātauranga ? ...... 555 (2) Are there other valid interests with regard to the Government’s supervision of the teaching of mātauranga ? ...... 557 (3) Conclusion and reforms ...... 559 6.5.5 Summary of findings and recommendations ...... 561 6.6 Science ...... 561 6.6.1 Current legislation, policies, and funding ...... 562 6.6.2 The position of the claimants ...... 565 6.6.3 The position of the Crown ...... 565 6.6.4 Analysis ...... 566 (1) Is there a Treaty interest in the Government’s RS&T funding policy ? ...... 566 (2) Are there other valid interests with regard to the Government’s RS&T funding policy ? ...... 568 (3) Conclusion and reforms ...... 570 6.6.5 Summary of findings and recommendations ...... 573 6.7 The special position of Te Puni Kōkiri ...... 573 6.8 Conclusion ...... 575 6.8.1 Shared responsibility between Māori and the Crown ...... 575 6.8.2 Reasonable limits on the Crown’s obligation ...... 577 6.8.3 Partnership principles ...... 577 (1) According mātauranga Māori appropriate priority ...... 578 (2) A coordinated Crown approach ...... 578 (3) A partnership for setting objectives ...... 579 (4) Identifying the representatives of the Māori partner ...... 579 (5) Resources and time for meaningful engagement ...... 580 (6) The quality of Māori engagement in objective-setting ...... 581 (7) The importance of seeking agreement ...... 581 (8) Achieving agreed objectives ...... 581 xvii Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Short Contents (9) Shared action ...... 581 (10) Shared review and evaluation ...... 581 6.8.4 Working principles – conclusions ...... 582 6.8.5 The performance of the mātauranga agencies ...... 582 6.9 Summary of recommendations ...... 584 6.9.1 Culture and heritage agencies ...... 585 (1) Sector-wide...... 585 (2) Taonga tūturu ...... 585 (3) Arts, culture, and broadcasting ...... 585 (4) Archives and libraries ...... 585 (5) education agencies ...... 586 6.9.2 Research, science, and technology agencies ...... 586 6.9.3 Te Puni Kōkiri ...... 586

Chapter 7 : Rongoā Māori ...... 601 7.1 Introduction ...... 601 7.1.1 The significance of rongoā to Wai 262 ...... 602 7.1.2 Rongoā in traditional Māori conceptions of health and well-being ...... 602 7.2 The Tohunga Suppression Act 1907 ...... 606 7.2.1 Introduction ...... 606 7.2.2 The impact of colonisation and disease...... 607 7.2.3 The link between tohunga and ill health at the turn of the nineteenth century ...... 608 7.2.4 Measures to deal with harmful tohunga ...... 610 7.2.5 The passage of the Tohunga Suppression Act ...... 612 7.2.6 The Act in practice ...... 615 7.2.7 The historiographical debate ...... 615 (1) Motivation for the Act ...... 616 (2) The justification for the Act ...... 618 (3) The impact on traditional Māori healing ...... 618 7.2.8 The arguments of the parties ...... 619 (1) The claimants ...... 619 (2) The Crown ...... 620 7.2.9 Analysis ...... 621 (1) Was the passage of the Act justified ? ...... 621 (a) The Act was not an adequate response to the late nineteenth-century Māori health crisis ...... 622 (b) The Act failed to distinguish between tohunga whose activities were harmful and those who were not ...... 622 (c) The Act was not needed to deal with ‘quackery’ ...... 623 (2) What motivated the Act ? ...... 624 (3) What was the Act’s impact on traditional Māori healing ? ...... 624 7.2.10 Conclusion ...... 627 xviii Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Short Contents 7.3 Contemporary government support for rongoā Māori ...... 627 7.3.1 Introduction ...... 627 7.3.2 early Government recognition ...... 628 7.3.3 The development of standards and expansion of contracts ...... 629 7.3.4 Funding of rākau rongoā and the problem of official definitions ...... 631 7.3.5 Ministry strategies and plans ...... 632 7.3.6 The development of a national body ...... 633 7.3.7 The Medicines Act 1981 and ANZTPA ...... 636 7.3.8 Commercialisation ...... 638 7.3.9 The arguments of the parties ...... 639 (1) The claimants ...... 639 (2) The Crown ...... 640 7.3.10 Analysis ...... 642 (1) The modern Māori health crisis ...... 642 (2) What rongoā has to offer ...... 646 (3) The Treaty interest ...... 648 (4) How well does the Crown support rongoā ? ...... 649 (a) The sufficiency of rongoā funding ...... 649 (b) The exclusion of core aspects of rongoā from funding ...... 649 (c) The suitability of Crown health strategies and structures ...... 650 (d) The development of a new national body ...... 651 (e) Access to the bush ...... 653 7.3.11 Conclusion and reforms ...... 655 7.4 Summary of recommendations ...... 657

Chapter 8 : The Making of International Instruments ...... 669 8.1 Introduction ...... 669 8.2 Some examples of international instruments ...... 670 8.2.1 The Convention on Biological Diversity ...... 670 8.2.2 The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ...... 671 8.2.3 The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ...... 672 8.2.4 The Australia New Zealand Therapeutic Products Authority ...... 674 8.3 Crown engagement policies and practices ...... 675 8.3.1 MFAT’s outreach activities and strategy ...... 675 8.3.2 The Māori engagement Strategy ...... 676 8.4 Claimant and Crown arguments ...... 678 8.4.1 The claimants’ concerns ...... 678 8.4.2 The Crown’s response ...... 679 8.5 Analysis ...... 680 8.5.1 Are the principles of the Treaty relevant to making international instruments ? ...... 680 8.5.2 Do the Crown’s policies and practices comply with the Treaty ? ...... 682

xix Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Short Contents 8.5.3 Conclusion ...... 684 8.6 Reforms ...... 684 8.6.1 Partnership and engagement mechanisms ...... 685 8.6.2 Independent Māori participation on the world stage ...... 686 8.6.3 Transparency and accountability ...... 687 (1) Improved reporting to iwi and Māori organisations ...... 687 (2) Accountability to the Māori Affairs Select Committee ...... 688 (3) Wider parliamentary consideration of Treaty interests ...... 688 (4) Statutory enforcement ...... 688 (5) Accountability to international organisations ...... 688 8.7 Conclusion ...... 689 8.8 Summary of recommendations ...... 690

Chapter 9 : conclusion ...... 699 9.1 Finding a place for mātauranga māori in New Zealand law and policy ...... 699 9.2 Our recommendations ...... 700 9.2.1 The claimants’ submissions on relief ...... 700 9.2.2 Our approach ...... 701 9.2.3 Protecting the kaitiaki relationship with mātauranga Māori and taonga works ...... 702 9.2.4 Protecting the kaitiaki relationship with mātauranga Māori and taonga species ...... 703 9.2.5 Protecting Māori interests in the environment ...... 705 9.2.6 Protecting Māori interests in the conservation estate ...... 706 9.2.7 Protecting Te Reo Māori ...... 708 9.2.8 Protecting and transmitting mātauranga Māori controlled or held by the Crown...... 709 9.2.9 Protecting rongoā Māori ...... 711 9.2.10 Protecting Māori interests in the making of international instruments ...... 712 9.2.11 New bodies and expenditure arising from our recommendations ...... 713 9.3 Perfecting the Treaty partnership ...... 714

Appendix i : A Brief Procedural History of the Wai 262 Inquiry ...... 719 I.1 Introduction ...... 719 I.2 The origins of the claim ...... 719 I.3 The first phase of the inquiry ...... 721 I.3.1 Preparing the inquiry ...... 721 I.3.2 Confidentiality of evidence ...... 722 I.3.3 Research ...... 722 I.3.4 The first round of hearings ...... 723 I.4 The second phase of the inquiry ...... 725 I.4.1 Defining the issues to be heard ...... 725 I.4.2 The second round of hearings ...... 726 xx Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Short Contents I.4.3 Applications for claimant status ...... 727 I.4.4 Interested persons and groups ...... 728 I.4.5 Crown evidence ...... 729 I.4.6 Closing submissions ...... 730

Appendix ii : Select Record of Inquiry ...... 735

Glossary ...... 745

Bibliography ...... 753

Picture credits ...... 771

MAPS

5.1 Numbers of speakers of te reo by local authority ...... 473 5.2 Percentage of speakers of te reo by local authority ...... 474

FIGuReS

5.1 Percentage of all Māori in early childhood education at kōhanga reo, 1989–2008 ..419 5.2 All Students at kōhanga reo, 1983–2009 ...... 419 5.3 Māori participation in kōhanga reo, 1989–2008 : actual and projected ...... 420 5.4 Māori children in kōhanga reo and Māori te reo speakers aged 0–4, 1992–2009 .. 420 5.5 Māori enrolment in early childhood education by type of centre, 1989–2008 ...... 421 5.6 Percentage of all Māori school students in Māori-medium education, 1992–2009 ..421 5.7 All school students in Māori-medium education, 1992–2009...... 422 5.8 Māori participation in Māori-medium education, 1992–2009 : actual and projected ...... 422 5.9 School students in level 1 of Māori-medium education, 1996–2009 ...... 423 5.10 Māori children in Māori-medium schooling and Māori te reo speakers aged 5–14, 1992–2009 ...... 423 5.11 Primary-schooling preferences of caregivers of Māori children and actual participation rates as surveyed in 1992 ...... 431

xxi Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Short Contents 5.12 Surveyed schooling preferences of caregivers of Māori school children and projected and actual Māori student enrolment in Māori-medium education, 1992 . 431 5.13 Primary-schooling preferences of caregivers of Māori children and actual participation rates as surveyed in 1995 ...... 432 5.14 Surveyed schooling preferences of caregivers of Māori school children and projected and actual Māori student enrolment in Māori-medium education, 1995 .432 5.15 Percentage of Māori who speak te reo by census, 1996–2006 ...... 433 5.16 Census Māori te reo speaker numbers, 2006 : actual and projected ...... 433 7.1 Female life expectancy at birth, by ethnicity, 1951–2006 ...... 643 7.2 Male life expectancy at birth, by ethnicity, 1951–2006 ...... 643 7.3 Diabetes complications, 15+ years, 2006-08, rate per 100,000, by ethnicity ...... 644 7.4 Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease indicators ...... 644 7.5 Tobacco smoking, 2008, by gender and ethnicity ...... 645 7.6 Obesity, 2006-07, by gender and ethnicity, percent ...... 645

TABLeS

5.1 Te reo-oriented early childhood education, 1989–2009 : student and centre numbers ...... 409 5.2 Te reo-oriented early childhood education, 1989–2009 : percentages ...... 410 5.3 Students in Māori-medium schooling, 1992–2009 : student numbers by level of immersion ...... 412 5.4 Student percentages in Māori-medium schooling, 1992–2009 ...... 418 5.5 Māori language and english teacher vacancies, 1997–2009...... 424 5.6 Surveyed demand for Māori language education, 1992 and 1995 ...... 427 5.7 Subjects taken by secondary school students : te reo Māori and selected other languages ...... 428 5.8 Change in population and te reo speaking in census age cohorts in the Māori ethnic group, 1996–2006 ...... 430 5.9 Māori ethnic group te reo speaker numbers by age group in census, 1996–2006 ...436 5.10 Likelihood to be a te reo speaker by age group in the Māori ethnic group at the 2006 census ...... 439 I.1 Hearings during phase 1 of the Wai 262 inquiry ...... 724 I.2 Hearing during phase 2 of the Wai 262 inquiry ...... 726

xxii Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz

ABBRevIATIONS

ABS access and benefit-sharing AIP agreement in principle AJHR Appendix to the House of Representatives ANZTPA Australia New Zealand Therapeutic Products Authority APEC Asia-Pacific economic Cooperation app appendix art article c circa CA Court of Appeal CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CE common era CEO chief executive officer CFR Crop and Food Research CGP Conservation General Policy ch chapter CHE Crown Health enterprise cl clause CMRI Crown–Māori Relationship Instrument COP Conference of the Parties CRI Crown Research Institute DHB District Health Board DINZ Designers Institute of New Zealand DNA deoxyribo-nucleic acid doc document DOC Department of Conservation DRIP Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples DSIR Department of Scientific and Industrial Research ed edition, editor, edited by EEZ exclusive economic zone EIA environmental impact assessment EIT eastern Institute of Technology EPA environmental Protection Authority ERMA environmental Risk Management Authority ERO education Review Office EU european union FAO united Nations Food and Agriculture Organization fn footnote FOMA Federation of Māori Authorities FTTE full-time teacher equivalent GATS General Agreement on Trade in Services

xxiii Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Abbreviations GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade GM genetic modification GMO genetically modified organism GNS Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences HL House of Lords HFA Health Funding Authority HPA Heritage Protection Authority HRC Health Research Council HSNO Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 IBSC Institutional biological safety committee ILO International Labour Organization IP intellectual property IPONZ Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand IRMP iwi resource management plan J Justice (when used after a surname) JMA joint management agreement LIAC Library and Information Advisory Commission ltd limited MAF Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry MED Ministry of economic Development Medsafe Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Authority MES Māori engagement Strategy MFAT Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade MFE Ministry for the environment MKDOE ‘Māori Knowledge and Development’ output expense MLS Māori Language Strategy (Te Rautaki Reo Māori) MORST Ministry of Research, Science and Technology MOU memorandum of understanding MPDS Māori Provider Development Scheme MPF Māori Potential Fund MQS Māori Qualification Services MSI Ministry of Science and Innovation MTS Māori Television Service NFU National Film unit NGIA Nursery and Garden Industry Association of New Zealand NGO non-governmental organisation NIA National Interest Analysis NIWA National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research no number NQF National Qualifications Framework NZBS New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy NZCA New Zealand Court of Appeal NZCA New Zealand Conservation Authority xxiv Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Abbreviations NZCER New Zealand Council for educational Research NZEI New Zealand educational Institute NZ–HK CEP New Zealand – Hong Kong Closer economic Partnership NZIPA New Zealand Institute of Patent Attorneys NZLR New Zealand Law Reports NZPD New Zealand Parliamentary Debates NZQA New Zealand Qualifications Authority OAG Office of the Auditor General OECD Organisation for economic Co-operation and Development p, pp page, pages P president of the Court of Appeal (when used after a surname) para paragraph PC Privy Council PCE Parliamentary Commissioner for the environment PCT Patent Cooperation Treaty PHO Public Health Organisation PIC prior informed consent pt part PVR plant variety right QC Queen’s Counsel RHA Regional Health Authority RMA Resource Management Act 1991 RMLR Resource Management Law Reform project RNA ribo-nucleic acid RS&T research, science, and technology RSNZ Royal Society of New Zealand s, ss section, sections (of an Act of Parliament) SC Supreme Court sch schedule SCR Supreme Court Reports SOI statement of issues tbl table TCE traditional cultural expression TEC Tertiary education Commission TK traditional knowledge TRIPS Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement TSA Tohunga Suppression Act 1907 TTIF Transition Toi Iho Foundation TVNZ Television New Zealand UMF unique Mānuka Factor UNEP united Nations environment Programme UNESCO united Nations educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UPOV International union for the Protection of New varieties of Plants

xxv Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Abbreviations uS United States Reports v and vol volume VMAG vision Mātauranga Advisory Group WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization WIPO-IGC World Intellectual Property Organization Intergovernmental Committee WTO World Trade Organization

‘Wai’ is a prefix used with Waitangi Tribunal claim numbers.

unless otherwise stated, footnote references to claims, papers, and documents are to the Wai 262 record of inquiry, a select copy of which is reproduced in appendix II and a full copy of which is available on request from the Waitangi Tribunal.

xxvi Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz

Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz

More than a cluster of words or a set of grammatical rules, a language is a flash of the human spirit, the filter through which the soul of each particular culture reaches into the material world. —Wade Davis

Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz

Te Reo MāoRi 5

Ko te reo te mauri o te mana Māori. The language is the core of our Māori culture and mana. —Sir James Henare

Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz

CHAPTeR 5

Te Reo MāoRi

5.1 Preface During the drafting of this report, we were aware that the parties might benefit from the early release of certain chapters as they grappled with the complex issues involved in the claim. We preferred not to do so, however, on the basis that the principal value of the report would be in its totality rather than in its components. But, after the Minister of Māori Affairs announced in July 2010 a full ministerial review of the Māori language sector and strategy, we reluctantly decided that it would be best to release our te reo Māori chapter in advance of the rest of the report so that the review panel would have our own analysis available as it conducted its inquiry. It seemed unhelpful for two inquiries into the same subject matter to proceed in silos. We therefore released the te reo Māori chapter in pre-publication format on 19 October 2010. In a matter unrelated to the advance release of the chapter, we also declared our findings and recommendations to be provisional only. We did so mainly because the chapter addressed matters that went beyond the narrow set of reo issues agreed to earlier by the Crown and claimants concerning tribal dialects and the protection of te reo from inappropriate use. We had, indeed, considered the Crown’s entire Māori language programme of work (our reasons for doing so are explained in detail in section 5.2.3). We therefore acknowledged that the parties would have placed more and perhaps different evidence in front of us had the inquiry actually been framed in such a way, and we accordingly provided the opportunity for any party to make a submission on the te reo Māori chapter’s contents to us by 25 November 2010, which we would consider before issuing our full and final Wai 262 report. We received submissions from the Crown, Ngāti Koata, and Ngāti Porou.1 The Crown attached a lengthy statement, written by Te Puni Kōkiri, which set out ‘factual points’ that the Tribunal should address. Ngāti Koata and Ngāti Porou both supported the Tribunal’s findings but disagreed with its recommendations, arguing for a direct role for individual iwi in identifying the appropriate remedies to safeguard te reo. After due consideration, we were not convinced by these submissions that the chapter needed to be amended. Any changes we have subsequently made are minor only, and relate principally to matters of report-wide consistency and cross-referencing. We have not updated the chapter to 2011, so it continues to refer to the situation at the time of the chapter’s initial release. In recognition, however, of the fact that a brief period for submissions did and could not con- stitute a full inquiry into the reo issues we covered, our findings and recommendations should rightly continue to be regarded as provisional. This is far from the last word on the subject, but it is now for others to take the matter further.

387 Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz 5.2 Ko Aotearoa Tēnei : Te Taumata Tuarua 5.2 Introduction knowledge and use of te reo, and had in fact facilitated the This is not the first time the Tribunal has considered decline in its use by Ngāti Koata.6 claims about the Māori language and the Crown’s Treaty The Crown, in its statement of response, acknowledged obligations. In 1986, the Tribunal’s landmark inquiry its Treaty obligation to protect te reo Māori, as found by into the te reo Māori claim (Wai 11) concluded that te the Tribunal in its 1986 report on the te reo Māori claim. reo Māori was a taonga guaranteed under the Treaty, The Crown contended that, through its current legisla- and that the Crown had significant responsibilities for its tion, policies, and practices, it was meeting any such obli- protection.2 gation. It also argued, though, that any recognition or protection of te reo occurs in a country where the major- 5.2.1 The identification of issues ity of citizens speak english only, freedom of expression is In the Wai 262 statement of claim the seven claimant iwi a fundamental human right, and where all language is the made a range of claims about Crown actions and policy ‘common heritage of mankind’. In those circumstances, it concerning te reo. The three Te Tai Tokerau iwi focused said, the Crown had no Treaty obligation to prevent the on the Crown’s alleged failure to protect their existing sys- ‘misuse’ of te reo.7 tems of mātauranga and the systems of knowledge for the In the light of the claims, the Crown’s response, and transmission of that mātauranga, including te reo Māori.3 the Tribunal’s previous consideration of the te reo Māori Ngāti Porou focused on the Crown’s alleged failure to claim in 1986, our December 2005 draft statement of protect te reo ake o Ngāti Porou, a tribal taonga and the issues proposed the following issues with respect to te reo : essential means of transmission of knowledge of Ngāti Porou culture and heritage.4 Ngāti Kahungunu alleged Does the Crown owe any obligations in respect of te reo that the Crown had failed to protect Ngāti Kahungunu Māori other than those identified by this tribunal in the te cultural knowledge, including te reo.5 And Ngāti Koata reo Māori (1986 WAI 11) report ? stated that the Crown had failed to protect Ngāti Koata Has the experience of Māori and the Crown in respect of

A Note on Definitions Dialects of commonality in all the different reo of the different iwi . So The terms ‘dialect’, ‘mita’, ‘tribal reo’, and ‘reo a iwi’ have many that if you sit down and listen to a native speaker speaking interpretations . Some commentators describe dozens of ‘dia- the reo irrespective of where that person may come from you lects’ within the reo of one particular iwi, while others identify understand it .’ variations across distinct geographical divides . ngāti Porou rūnanga chair Dr Apirana Mahuika told us that he ‘bristled’ at Revitalisation and revival the use of the phrase ‘tribal dialects’, and stated that ‘te reo ake Some sociolinguists prefer to use the terms ‘revitalisation’ and o ngati Porou is not a tribal dialect . ti is my language and there- ‘revival’ in different ways, with the former being used to refer fore all that i am .’ to languages that are still in common use but in a declining our own view is that dialectal differences are important, state of health and the latter being used to refer to languages and at times pronounced in terms of idiom and accent . But that are functionally dead or extinct . However, we use the two the differences are not sufficient to impede verbal understand- terms interchangeably, with a general preference for ‘revival’ . ing between native speakers from different tribal areas . indeed, By this, we are certainly not implying that te reo Māori is dead . despite effectively describing te reo ake o ngāti Porou as a sep- rather, we use ‘revival’ in the general sense of ‘bringing back to arate language, Dr Mahuika also explained that ‘there are areas strength’ .

388 Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Te Reo Māori 5.2.2(1)(a) language revival and maintenance since the te reo Māori o ngāti Wai, o te rarawa as an essential means of cultural report enabled the Crown’s obligations as found in that identity, cultural expression, and knowledge transmission to report to be defined with greater particularity today ? if so, the particular iwi ? how ?8 The statement of issues went on to ask whether such The draft statement of issues also proposed an analysis obligations had been met, and whether and how New of what findings in the 1986 report had been accepted and Zealand law and policy needed to be amended to be acted upon by the Crown, and whether New Zealand leg- brought into line with any Crown obligations.12 islative and policy instruments were sufficient to meet any With respect to use, the statement of issues asked : further obligations identified. Accordingly, we proposed asking what amendments to New Zealand law and policy Does the Crown have an obligation under the treaty of might be needed to bring them into line with the Crown’s Waitangi/te tiriti o Waitangi to protect te reo Māori from ability to meet any obligations so identified.9 use in a manner inconsistent with tikanga Māori underpin- In responding to the draft statement of issues, in March ning te reo ? 2006, Crown counsel submitted that the Crown opposed any inquiry into the te reo issues we had proposed : As with distinctiveness, the statement of issues asked whether this obligation had been met, and whether New The claimants have not asserted a Crown failure to respond Zealand law and policy needed to be brought into line to the WAI 11 recommendations, yet the tribunal proposes with any such obligation.13 auditing Crown conduct since the 1986 report . We address the issue of protection of te reo from inap- Further, the tribunal asks whether there now exist obliga- propriate use in chapter 1. As we explain there, while the tions other than those found by the tribunal in Wai 11 . The issue of use cannot be easily severed from any other mat- Crown opposes inclusion of issues revisiting the Wai 11 claim ters pertaining to te reo, its discussion fits more appro- so as to locate further treaty obligations not previously iden- priately with our treatment of related issues concerning tified, particularly in the absence of claimant allegations that intellectual property and regulatory safeguarding from novel treaty obligations have emerged .10 misuse and exploitation. We therefore make no further comment upon this aspect of the reo issues here. Discussion between the parties led to claimant agreement with the Crown on this point. Thus, in a joint mem- 5.2.2 The arguments of the parties orandum of 21 June 2006, Crown counsel confirmed that (1) The claimants the parties had agreed that the te reo issues for inclusion (a) Ngāti Porou in the statement of issues should be divided into two sec- Counsel for Ngāti Porou focused in closing submissions tions, relating to the distinctiveness and the use of te reo on matters relating to tribal dialect, or te reo ake o Ngāti Māori.11 We therefore adopted the parties’ agreed wording Porou, although some witnesses also gave evidence about in the statement of issues. With respect to distinctiveness, the historical suppression of te reo. the statement of issues thus asked : The claimants argued that the Crown was singularly failing to meet its obligations to tribal reo. Counsel sub- Does the Crown have obligations under the treaty of mitted that ‘The situation now facing te reo ake o Ngati Waitangi/te tiriti o Waitangi to protect and promote te reo Porou is, perhaps unsurprisingly, very similar to the situ- o ngāti Porou, o ngāti Kahungunu, o ngāti Koata, o ngāti ation that faced te reo Maori generally when the reo claim Kuri, o ngāti Wai, o te rarawa ? was made in the early 1980s.’ Just as Māori generally in Does the Crown have obligations under the treaty of the early 1980s were struggling to keep their reo alive, so Waitangi/te tiriti o Waitangi to actively protect te reo o today were Ngāti Porou ‘working under severe disadvan- ngāti Porou, o ngāti Kahungunu, o ngāti Koata, o ngāti Kuri, tages, financial and otherwise’.14 Counsel suggested that 389 Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz 5.2.2(1)(b) Ko Aotearoa Tēnei : Te Taumata Tuarua the horse had effectively bolted elsewhere and that the administered by the Ministry of education. even the New Crown should prioritise areas where native speakers were Zealand Qualifications Authority’s efforts to develop its still left. The ageing demographic of these speakers meant capacity to audit courses conducted in tribal dialect were that Crown action was most urgent.15 ‘not determined by any overall Crown strategy in relation While there were some Ngāti Porou initiatives in place, to te reo, but . . . determined by NZQA’s own priorities’.21 counsel said it was very hard for those who live outside The Crown had appeared to suggest that it was primar- the rohe to learn te reo ake o Ngāti Porou. Furthermore, ily up to Ngāti Porou to preserve its own form of te reo. on the east Coast itself, the health of te reo ake o Ngāti However, counsel argued, the Crown was actively fund- Porou had regressed, despite the gains made by the recent ing and supporting a new and standardised form through ‘Whaia Te Iti Kahurangi’ initiative. This was a joint pro- the work of Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori (the Māori ject of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Porou and the Ministry of Language Commission) and Māori Television that was education to address issues raised by the education causing the destruction of te reo ake o Ngāti Porou. The Review Office (ERO) in its highly critical 1997 report on Crown was thus failing to fulfil its article 2 obligations to the quality of education received by Ngāti Porou east iwi. After all, said counsel, ‘although the rights conferred Coast students. In 2004, the New Zealand Council for by Article 2 are often talked about in terms of Maori gen- educational Research noted the project’s success, but erally, the Treaty is in effect a compact between the Crown referred to the ‘acute’ need to develop more Ngāti Porou and . . . different tribal groupings’.22 teachers fluent in the tribal reo.16 Another ERO report in Dr Mahuika portrayed himself as fighting a battle 2006 again referred to the poor quality of te reo teach- against the work of Te Taura Whiri, metaphorically sug- ing in secondary schools in Te Tairāwhiti and thus repre- gesting he was constantly having to dig the Te Taura sented ‘a significant backwards step’.17 Whiri weeds out of his garden in order to plant the seed Counsel was also critical of Te Puni Kōkiri’s regional of te reo ake o Ngāti Porou. He, like other claimants, profile on the health of te reo Māori in Te Tairāwhiti, described much of the ‘new language’ as ‘unintelligible’. which was based largely on 2001 census data and the All he wanted was to hear a language on the Māori news results of the 2001 survey of the health of the Māori lan- that any native speakers could understand, he explained, guage. This profile did not reach any conclusions about rather than one few could.23 tribal reo, and in fact concluded the health of te reo in the region to be ‘in a relatively stable condition’.18 The (b) Ngāti Kahungunu claimants objected to this, given the problems the profile Counsel for Ngāti Kahungunu did not focus on the pres- identified with intergenerational transmission and likely ervation of te reo specifically in closing submissions. But declining proficiency.19 The ‘relatively stable’ verdict also counsel did submit that te reo was an essential compo- contrasted with the profile’s finding that ‘specific inter- nent of mātauranga Māori, which he did make extensive ventions’ would be needed in order to maintain the cur- submissions about. The Crown needed to continue to rent quality of te reo in Te Tairāwhiti in coming decades. implement strategies to strengthen te reo Māori so as to The Crown had been unable to point to any ‘specific inter- ensure ‘the overall protection of Ngāti Kahungunu cul- ventions’ beyond a language bank to preserve features of tural knowledge’.24 Several Ngāti Kahungunu witnesses tribal dialects, said counsel (see section 5.2.2(2)).20 addressed the issue of the protection of te reo from what Overall, said counsel, the Crown’s approach had been, they saw as inappropriate use (such as commercial exploi- at best, one of ‘benign neglect’ : there was no strategy for tation of certain place names).25 protecting tribal reo and no series of ‘specific interven- tions’. The Crown had spent only $253,000 on specific (c) Te Tai Tokerau Ngāti Porou language initiatives, but none since 2004, and Counsel for the Te Tai Tokerau claimants predominantly much of what it did spend had come from the contest- focused on the use of te reo Māori and referred to submis- able community-based language initiative funding pool sions on the protection of mātauranga Māori generally.26 390 Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Te Reo Māori 5.2.2(2) However, counsel also called Wai 262 a valuable chance (2) The Crown’s response for a ‘stocktake’ of the Crown’s responses to the Tribunal’s Te Puni Kōkiri policy director Tipene Chrisp, the key 1986 te reo report.27 For their part, Te Tai Tokerau wit- Government official with responsibility for Māori lan- nesses – like those of Ngāti Kahungunu – focused pre- guage policy, said that Government legislation and policy dominantly on issues around inappropriate use and place now incorporated the important principles established in names.28 previous Tribunal inquiries and in litigation concerning te reo. These included : (d) Ngāti Koata ӹte reo being a taonga of the Māori people ; Ngāti Koata witnesses mainly gave evidence about the ӹ the Government having an obligation to take ‘all rea- historical suppression of te reo.29 Ngāti Koata also called sonable steps’ to support the revitalisation of te reo ; Māori language broadcaster Piripi Walker (of Ngāti ӹ Māori and the Government having shared respon- Raukawa ki te Tonga) to discuss te reo issues on their sibility, with separate but complementary roles ; and behalf. Discussing the impact of Te Taura Whiri’s work ӹ the Government’s obligation to support the Māori on tribal dialect, Mr Walker expressed sympathy for an language not being absolute or fiscally unlimited.32 agency he described as under-funded but doing an admi- Overall, said Mr Chrisp, the implementation of the rable job on many fronts (for example, creating ‘five thou- Government’s 2003 Māori Language Strategy was an sand new words’ for teaching physics and chemistry). ‘ongoing process’ and the ‘Government is consistently However, he considered that Te Taura Whiri should con- seeking to improve our performance across the whole of sult with iwi about important decisions – for example, on government. In summary, we believe that we are doing whether transliterations were permissible.30 the right things, and we are steadily improving how we do Mr Walker’s evidence also covered a wide range of these things.’33 His stance was endorsed by Crown coun- issues with respect to contemporary Crown support for sel, who added that ‘the Crown . . . looks forward to con- and protection of te reo. He concluded that : tinuing to work with iwi to strengthen that performance’.34 Crown counsel also explained that the prior litigation The Crown has taken a number of steps to carry out the rec- and the Crown’s subsequent incorporation of the afore- ommendations made by the Waitangi tribunal in the te reo mentioned principles into its legislation and policy was Māori claim . However, these steps have not had the neces- the reason it had sought to limit the focus of the inquiry. sary amount of funding or support from the Government to In other words, there was no need to revisit such matters. truly make an impact . The Māori Language Act has provided Crown counsel noted that claimant counsel had agreed token official recognition for Māori, lacking recognition in to a narrow set of issues, and submitted that the Tribunal many areas such as the right to use spoken and written Māori should limit itself in its findings to the matters set out in in dealings with all central Departments and local authori- the statement of issues.35 ties, signage and official publications . A further full commis- With respect to dialect, the Crown emphasised its obli- sion of inquiry into language rights has not been instituted . gation is to te reo : the extent to which it has any obliga- Funding for projects and organisations promoting te reo in tion to tribal reo depends upon whether those dialects comparison to other organisations both in new Zealand and ‘have a relationship to Te Reo’. Counsel also distinguished overseas has been inadequate with a subsequent low impact . between the Crown’s obligations to support te reo and its te reo Māori must be promoted not just to Māori, and not use as a vehicle to transmit mātauranga Māori : ‘the extent just in one week of the year . in order to truly protect and pro- of the Crown’s obligation is to protect and revitalise Te mote te reo Māori in accordance with its treaty obligations, Reo ; it is for iwi to transmit the associated knowledge the Government must promote the use of te reo Māori according to their local preferences’.36 more widely than currently so that it can be used in every- Despite emphasising iwi responsibility for dialects, day situations, as has been the case for the Welsh language the Crown certainly did not deny its own responsibil- in Wales .31 ity. It described how it supports tribal reo by funding 391 Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz 5.2.3 Ko Aotearoa Tēnei : Te Taumata Tuarua iwi radio stations, assisting iwi to implement language prevent any further transliterations entering te reo Māori plans, and entering into iwi education partnerships.37 was in fact derived from Māori preferences.45 For example, Mr Chrisp referred to funding that had been made available to develop unique Ngāti Porou cur- 5.2.3 Our extension beyond the statement of issues riculum guidelines38 and the Māori language archiving As can be seen, the issues to be covered in the inquiry work of the National Library that can ‘create a language were kept to a narrow focus. However, as the inquiry pro- bank of various features of te reo ake o Ngāti Porou and ceeded, it became increasingly apparent that it would be other reo a iwi’.39 Secretary for education Karen Sewell both impossible and artificial to deal with these specific noted her Ministry’s iwi education partnership with Ngāti matters (support for dialects and protection from inap- Porou that had yielded a variety of education resources propriate use) without examining the Crown’s wider te based on te mātauranga o Ngāti Porou, and the $239,000 reo policy. While counsel had agreed to ring-fence these of community-based language initiative funding made issues, Māori witnesses clearly recognised that separation available to Ngāti Porou for the planning and protection was not viable. of te reo ake o Ngāti Porou.40 Arawhetu Peretini, the act- Crown counsel described Mr Walker’s evidence (which ing chief adviser Māori at the New Zealand Qualifications ranged much more broadly than the matters contained Authority, explained that unit standards in te reo Māori in the statement of issues) as ‘something of an audit . . . qualifications had been developed that recognise dialectal of how the Government has addressed te reo since the differences.41 report in Wai 11’. Mr Walker readily agreed that that was In questioning witnesses, however, Crown counsel what he had done. This approach was justified, he said, seemed concerned to suggest there were real limits to how because the Crown’s obligations to protect and promote far the Crown could go. For example, in cross-examining tribal reo ‘all lie firmly on the level of the Crown’s protec- legal historian Dr David Williams in 2002, counsel noted tion generally through its instruments that are available that the relief sought by Ngāti Porou to make te reo ake t o i t ’. 46 In other words, he felt that examining the Crown’s o Ngāti Porou the language of daily life for its members protection and promotion of te reo in general was fully included the use of television programming. His question relevant to assessing its support for iwi dialects (and, pre- to Dr Williams, about the need to treat all iwi equitably, sumably, protection from inappropriate use). implied that this was unworkable because it would need The Crown itself took a similar approach when pre- to be provided equally to any iwi with ‘similar views about senting evidence. For example, both Tipene Chrisp and their particular reo’.42 Similarly, he asked Mr Walker in Karen Sewell went well beyond the matters defined in the 2006 whether local signs to the airport would need to be statement of issues, although they described these parts of in english, Māori, and tribal dialect, or whether Te Taura their evidence as ‘background’ or ‘context’. For Ms Sewell, Whiri would need to produce versions of Microsoft Office this included general ‘information regarding the Ministry in every tribal reo. It seemed that the purpose of such of education and its role in providing Māori language questioning was to make the whole notion of a Crown education’, while Mr Chrisp set out ‘the purpose, struc- obligation to dialect appear completely impractical.43 ture and focus of the Māori Language Strategy’.47 With respect to the work of Te Taura Whiri, Mr For us, any doubts about the proper boundaries of Chrisp said that ‘socio-linguistic theory’ confirmed that our inquiry were resolved in a pivotal moment of cross- a national body charged with defining new words and examination. Counsel for Ngāti Koata asked Mr Chrisp terms and administering the official lexicon was the whether protecting or promoting te reo o Ngāti Koata appropriate governmental action. He said that the new would necessarily also include protecting or promoting terms provided by Te Taura Whiri – such as those for the te reo Māori generally within the Ngāti Koata rohe. Mr days of the week – were put up as options rather than for Chrisp replied ‘I think there’s a clear relationship between mandatory use.44 He added that Te Taura Whiri’s policy to the two, yes.’ Counsel then asked ‘And therefore if Te Reo

392 Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Te Reo Māori 5.3.1 Māori suffers a loss then Te Reo o Ngāti Koata must suffer Crown’s Treaty obligation : partnership, a Māori- a loss too ?’ To this, Mr Chrisp replied ‘Given the connec- speaking government, wise policy, and appropriate tion, yes.’48 The witness effectively endorsed the view that resources (section 5.5.6) ; and assessing the Crown’s general performance was a prereq- ӹ our recommendations for reform and structural uisite for considering the issue of tribal reo (although, in change (section 5.6). our view, he could not reasonably have disagreed with the proposition). We have therefore decided to examine the Crown’s gen- 5.3 Historical Decline and Post-1986 Revival eral te reo policies and practices alongside our considera- Our assessment of the Crown’s current te reo policies tion of the matter of tribal dialect. We make no apology and practices necessarily begins with a brief overview of for going against the agreement of Crown and claimant the state of the Māori language throughout the twenti- counsel. There is simply no logical basis for separating eth century. We traverse the historical period (pre-1975) the state of te reo and the state of particular dialects. The only briefly, in accordance with the presiding officer’s health of te reo as a whole and the health of individual 2006 ruling that the remaining hearings would focus on tribal dialects are mutually dependent : any threat to post-1975 events and that no substantive findings would one is a threat to the other, and any Crown activity that be made on historical claims.49 We draw heavily on the impacts on one necessarily impacts on the other. account provided by the Tribunal in its 1986 report on the Were this not the case, why would the Crown have cho- te reo Māori claim, which shared our focus on the post- sen to submit so much evidence on the general revival 1975 period.50 effort ? As became increasingly clear to us as the inquiry In short, many developments over more than two dec- progressed, the answer was that such evidence was not so ades have today contributed to a full array of contempo- much ‘context’ for the story as the story itself. rary Crown measures and policies aimed at reviving and In taking this approach, we acknowledge that more evi- promoting te reo Māori. The two biggest areas of invest- dence, or different evidence, might have been presented ment have been Māori language education and broadcast- to us had the inquiry’s focus been broader. We accept ing. Many of these initiatives were first undertaken and that further research may yield better insights. Our find- driven by Māori themselves. ings and recommendations ought properly to be treated as provisional for that reason. But, as a commission of 5.3.1 Towards English monolingualism, 1900–75 inquiry, we would be remiss not to comment where we While many Māori were bilingual at the end of the nine- feel sufficiently conversant with the facts to do so – such teenth century, most spoke te reo as their ‘ordinary means is the nature of our inquisitorial function. We trust we do of communication’. Then came what the te reo Māori so in a constructively critical manner and without contra- Tribunal identified as the first of three 25-year periods in vening the principles of natural justice. the history of the Māori language in the twentieth cen- Thus, this chapter comprises : tury. During the first, from 1900 to 1925, Māori children ӹ a brief account of the historical decline of te reo and went to school as monolingual Māori speakers and all the post-1986 revival (section 5.3) ; effort was focused on their learning english. The children ӹ a summary of the health of te reo in 2010 (section had to leave te reo at the school gate and were punished if 5.4) ; they did not.51 ӹ our analysis of the Treaty interest in te reo, and the Between 1925 and 1950, the children of the first period obligations this imposes on the Crown and on Māori grew to adulthood and, while they spoke te reo to their (section 5.5) ; parents and older relatives, they would not speak Māori ӹ our assessment of the Crown’s current te reo policy. to their children. Parents simply did not want their own We base this on four principles deriving from the children to be punished in the way that they had been. Of

393 Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz 5.3.2 Ko Aotearoa Tēnei : Te Taumata Tuarua Pita Sharples speaking at the opening of New Zealand’s first kura kaupapa Māori at Hoani Waititi Marae in 1985. Invited dignitaries included the Prime Minister, David Lange, and the Governor- General, Sir Paul Reeves.

course some children were taught te reo, or at least could to 80 per cent in 1923 to 55 per cent in 1950 to 26 per cent understand it well, but by and large english had become in 1953–58 and to 5 per cent in 1975.55 their first language.52 The period from 1950 to 1975 was one of accelerat- 5.3.2 The health of te reo in the mid-1970s ing monolingualism, as education policies were com- Professor Biggs’s 1975 figure presumably derives from pounded by urbanisation and associated practices such the research of Dr Richard Benton for the New Zealand as ‘pepper-potting’.53 The new generation of parents was Council for educational Research. Between 1973 and 1979, convinced that their children had to speak english to get Benton surveyed 6,470 Māori families (comprising over ahead, and thus a whole generation grew up who either 33,000 individuals) throughout the North Island. He con- knew no Māori or knew so little that they were ‘unable to cluded that, in the mid 1970s, there were 64,000 fluent use it effectively and with dignity’. The total domination speakers of Māori within the Māori community (approxi- of english-language mass media also acted as an ‘inces- mately 18 per cent of all Māori) and another 30,000 sant barrage that blasted the Maori tongue almost into who could understand conversational Māori quite well. oblivion’.54 However, he identified only two domains where fluent The main evidence provided to the Wai 262 inquiry speakers felt secure : on the marae and at certain religious about the twentieth-century history of te reo Māori observances. Moreover, in only 170 of the 4,090 house- was Dr Williams’s report Crown Policy Affecting Maori holds surveyed with resident children was the youngest Knowledge Systems and Cultural Practices. Like the te reo child rated as fluent. Writing in 1991, Benton commented : Māori Tribunal, Williams noted the research of Professor Bruce Biggs, which showed that the ability to speak te reo it was clear that Maori was, by the 1970s, playing only a very amongst Māori children declined from 90 per cent in 1913 marginal role in the upbringing of Maori children, and that,

394 Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Te Reo Māori 5.3.3 Te Reo Māori Society patron, Hemi Potatau, with a petition he was about to present to Parliament in June 1978 calling for the setting up of a Māori television production unit. Along with land loss, the status of te reo was a great galvanising issue in Māori protests over Treaty rights in the 1970s and 1980s.

if nature were left to take its course, Maori would be a lan- it is the substance of our Maori tanga . ti is our link with the guage without native speakers with the passing of the pre- past and all its glories and tragedies . ti is our link with our sent generation of Maori-speaking parents 56. tipuna .58

Later, in 2001, Benton and fellow researcher Nena The presentation of this petition led to the annual celebra- Benton reflected that the number of pre-school children tion of Māori Language Day, which in 1975 became Māori who could speak Māori fluently in 1979 was ‘almost cer- Language Week. tainly less than a hundred’.57 After 1975, Māori protests and petitions continued unabated. It is little wonder given the prevailing mood 5.3.3 Māori initiatives to save the language of the Government (for example, the Minister of Māori In response to the dawning realisation that the language Affairs Ben Couch said in 1979 that he saw no need to was in serious peril, a series of Māori initiatives began take further legislative steps to protect the language).59 that effectively brought te reo back from the brink. In Thus, in 1978, another 30,000-signature petition was September 1972, the Ngā Tamatoa Council (led by Hana presented to Parliament, this time by the Te Reo Māori Jackson) presented a peitition to Parliament signed by Society of Wellington. It sought the establishment of a 30,000 people, calling for Māori culture and language to Māori television production unit within the New Zealand be taught in all New Zealand schools. Jackson’s accompa- Broadcasting Corporation. Another petition in 1981, nying submission referred to speaking Māori as : signed by 2,500 people, called for Māori to be made an official language of New Zealand.60 the only real symbol of Maori identity . . . For us to be able The te reo revival was gathering pace. In 1979, Te to speak Maori is the truest expression of our Maori tanga . Ātaarangi – a community-based Māori language learning

395 Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz 5.3.4 Ko Aotearoa Tēnei : Te Taumata Tuarua programme – was initiated to teach speaking and listen- Kaiwhakapūmau i te Reo Māori (the Wellington Māori ing skills to adult Māori. Te Wānanga o Raukawa was Language Board) and primarily sought to have Māori established in 1981 to teach Māori culture and knowledge made an official language of New Zealand. The claimants at tertiary level because of the lack of such provision in also laid a number of complaints about the education sys- the mainstream system. The first urban Māori radio sta- tem and the lack of broadcasting support for te reo. tion, Te upoko o te Ika in Wellington, broadcast for one In its 1986 report, the Tribunal stated that it was ‘clear week during Māori Language Week 1983. that the Maori language in New Zealand is not in a Most significantly, perhaps, 1982 saw the advent of the healthy state at the present time and that urgent action kōhanga reo (or language nest) movement for Māori pre- must be taken if it is to survive’. The Tribunal felt there schoolers. Its philosophy centred around kaupapa and was a danger of Māori becoming like ‘Church Latin’, only tikanga Māori, as well as whānau involvement – in par- ever being used on ceremonial occasions. It did note, ticular through the teaching of tamariki by their grand- however, the advent of a ‘remarkable thing’ – the kōhanga parents. The first kōhanga reo opened in Wainuiomata in reo movement – which it felt demonstrated the ‘valiant April 1982. With some support from the Māori education efforts’ Māori parents were prepared to make to repair the Foundation and the Department of Māori Affairs, num- damage to te reo.62 bers rose rapidly, and by 1985 there were over 6,000 chil- The Tribunal reflected that Māori would become an dren attending 416 kōhanga reo.61 This was clearly a grass- increasingly large part of the New Zealand population roots movement of incredible energy and momentum. into the future, particularly amongst the school-age pop- Frustration at the lack of opportunities for children to ulation. It also anticipated that more and more people keep learning in te reo at primary school led to a Māori would be inclined to identify with their Māori ancestry. immersion primary school (or kura kaupapa Māori) New Zealand’s population appeared to be undergoing being established, by Māori, at Hoani Waititi Marae in a profound change, which meant that ‘the demand for West Auckland in 1985. This was perhaps the most sig- fluency in the Maori language will increase rather than nificant development in Māori language schooling since diminish. If there are difficulties put in the way of those the country’s first bilingual school was designated at who want to attain that fluency then serious social ten- Rūātoki in 1977. The birth of kura kaupapa was followed, sions could develop’.63 in January 1988, by the ‘Matawaia Declaration’ in which The Tribunal warned that the sense of social injustice bilingual school communities called for the creation of associated with Māori concerns for their language could an independent, statutory Māori education authority to become ‘explosive’. It also said that te reo Māori was establish Māori control and the autonomy of kaupapa ‘the embodiment of the particular spiritual and mental Māori practices in the education system. These developments demonstrate that, alongside land, the health of te reo has been one of the two great galvanising issues in Māori protests over Treaty rights during the last three or more decades. Propelled by a profound depth of feeling and sense of purpose, efforts to safeguard the Māori language gave great impetus to the Māori ‘renais- sance’ overall. The Waitangi Tribunal’s 1986 5.3.4 The inquiry into the te reo Māori claim Report of the Waitangi Tribunal In the mid-1980s, Māori concerns over te reo that had on the Te Reo Maori Claim. The Tribunal found that te been building over the previous 15 years became focused reo was a taonga and that on the Waitangi Tribunal. The te reo Māori (Wai 11) urgent action was needed claim was brought by Huirangi Waikerepuru and Ngā to improve its health. 396 Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Te Reo Māori 5.3.5 During their inquiry into the te reo Māori claim, members of the Tribunal visited a kōhanga reo at Waiwhetu in Lower Hutt in June 1985. The visit inspired the following comments in their published report : ‘The infants come to a place where nothing but Maori is spoken. They have their day filled with activity – games, songs and other pastimes to be found in any kindergarten – but all in Maori. Within a surprisingly short time they master Maori fluently in a childish way until they are five or six years of age when they go to an orthodox primary school. By that time they are able to carry on an animated conversation in Maori and we watched them doing so in a Kohanga reo that we visited.’ The members pictured are Chief Judge Edward Durie and Paul Temm QC.

concepts of the Maori’, which in turn provided useful ӹ bilingualism in Māori and in english become a pre- alternatives to Western ways of thinking. The Tribunal requisite for any jobs deemed necessary by the State cautioned that, without te reo, ‘this new dimension of life Services Commission.65 from which New Zealand as a whole may profit would be The Tribunal did not recommend that te reo Māori be lost to us’.64 a compulsory subject in schools, nor that all official docu- The Tribunal recommended that : ments be published in both english and Māori. At that ӹ legislation be introduced enabling anyone to use the time, it said, ‘we think it more profitable to promote the Māori language if they wished in all courts of law language than to impose it’.66 and in any dealings with Government departments, local authorities and other public bodies ; 5.3.5 The Maori Language Act 1987 ӹ a supervising body be established by statute to It is commonly believed that the Tribunal’s report on the supervise and foster the use of the Māori language ; te reo Māori claim led to the introduction of legislation by ӹ an inquiry examine the way Māori children were the Crown. Te Taura Whiri, for example, states on its web- educated to ensure that all those who wanted to learn site that ‘[a]lthough calls had been made over a number Māori could do so from an early age, with financial of years for legislation to recognise the status of the Māori support from the State ; language in New Zealand, it was the tribunal’s finding that ӹ broadcasting policy be formulated that had regard to finally prompted the drafting of the Māori [L]anguage the Crown’s obligation to recognise and protect the Bill’.67 In fact the Māori Language Bill was introduced into Māori language ; and the House by Minister of Māori Affairs Koro Wetere on 397 Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz 5.3.6 Ko Aotearoa Tēnei : Te Taumata Tuarua 29 April 1986, the same day that the Tribunal signed and released its report. In other words, the Bill’s drafters had no prior consideration of the Tribunal’s report, although they were clearly prompted by the Tribunal’s inquiry.68 That said, the report was able to be considered before the legislation was enacted in 1987. The Maori Language Act gave te reo official language status, thus granting speakers the right to use it in the courts and other settings (albeit not in any dealings with Government departments, as the Tribunal had recommended). The Act also established the Māori Language Commission, which was initially called Te Komihana mō te Reo Māori but later (in 1991) renamed Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori. The commission was to have (and still has) a board of up to five Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o ngā Mokopuna, Seatoun, Wellington. This members, all appointed by the Minister of Māori Affairs, kura was opened in 1994, one of dozens established around the country in the mid-1990s as the Government sought to make amends for the who gives regard not only to candidates’ ‘personal attrib- previous lack of Māori-medium schooling options for kōhanga children. utes but also to their knowledge and experience in the use of the Māori language’. The commission’s functions were defined under section 7 of the Act as including : then Minister of Māori Affairs, Koro Wetere, envisaged ӹ initiating or developing policies and practices to give kōhanga reo becoming fully administered by iwi authori- effect to Māori being an official language of New ties within five years. However, a change in Government Zealand ; and the repeal of the Runanga Iwi Act 1990 in 1991 ended ӹgenerally promoting te reo as a living language ; and any such plans, with the new administration preferring ӹ advising the Minister of Māori Affairs as requested language and education initiatives to be implemented on matters relating to the Māori language. through mainstream departments rather than through Section 8 also gave the commission powers to : any devolution to iwi.69 ӹ hold or attend any inquiries to enable it to ascertain With increased funding under the Ministry of educa- the wishes of the Māori community with respect to tion’s regime, the number of children at kōhanga reo con- te reo ; tinued to rise sharply, peaking with 14,514 students at 809 ӹ undertake or commission research into the use of te kōhanga services in 1993 (up from 8,724 children at 470 reo ; services in 1989). By 2009, this had declined to 9,288 chil- ӹ consult with Government departments about the use dren attending 464 kōhanga reo. The proportion of Māori of te reo in the course of their business ; children in early childhood education attending kōhanga ӹpublish information relating to the use of te reo ; and reo was just under half at the 1993 peak and today stands ӹ report to the Minister on any matters regarding te at just under a quarter.70 reo that it thinks should be drawn to the Minister’s It was a similar story for schooling, where the Ministry attention. of education’s funding also led to dramatic growth in the number of kura kaupapa during the early to mid-1990s. 5.3.6 Developments in education While there were just six kura kaupapa in 1990, there With the passage of the education Act in 1989, the were 13 in 1992, 34 in 1995, and 59 in 1998. There was simi- Ministry of education assumed control for all aspects of lar growth in the overall number of schools offering some Māori-medium education that had previously sat within level of Māori-medium learning.71 excluding kura kau- the Department of Māori Affairs. At the same time, the papa, this reached 396 by 1999. A moratorium was placed 398 Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Te Reo Māori 5.3.6 on new kura kaupapa between 1998 and 2002, but by July to 2009. At primary level the rise in the number of Māori 2009 there were 70 kura kaupapa and three aspiring kura students in some form of Māori-medium education over kaupapa (kura teina). Other Māori-medium schools had the same time period was over 50 per cent. dropped back to 321. Between 1989 and 2009, the number of students learn- The total number of students in bilingual and immer- ing Māori as a subject at secondary schools rose 40.3 sion learning peaked at 30,793 in 1999, including 18.6 per per cent, and the number of schools offering the subject cent of all Māori school students (up from 12.5 per cent increased by around two thirds. The 2008 figure was the in 1992). The peak in Māori student numbers in Māori- highest total during the entire period, although the num- medium education came later, in 2004 (27,127), but the ber of schools offering Māori in 2008 was not as high as proportion of Māori students in this form of learning had in 2003.72 dropped to 16.9 per cent. By 2009, it had dropped further At the tertiary education level, there was also a mas- to 15.2 per cent. The high point in non-Māori participa- sive rise in overall Māori participation but it occurred tion in Māori-medium learning was in 1998 (4,432 stu- somewhat later than the growth of kōhanga reo and dents, or 0.8 per cent of all non-Māori school students). Māori-medium schooling. It peaked at 23.1 per cent of the Looking specifically at secondary schools, the number Māori population in 2004. The 2009 figure was 19.6 per of Māori students learning via the medium of te reo for at cent, which remained much higher than the participa- least 12 per cent of the time more than doubled from 1992 tion rate for the total population of 12.4 per cent. Much

Nan Bella teaching children Māori vowel sounds at Waiwhetu School in 1991. At this time, the demand for Māori-medium education was soaring.

399 Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz 5.3.7 Ko Aotearoa Tēnei : Te Taumata Tuarua of this rise can be attributed to the phenomenal growth allow the Crown to submit a scheme designed to protect of the wānanga, and particularly Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, te reo Māori if the assets were transferred.75 after the Government increased funding as a result of the In July 1991, Cabinet took its undertakings on Māori wānanga Treaty settlement in 2001. At the very peak of broadcasting to the High Court. These included, amongst this growth, in 2004, Te Wānanga o Aotearoa had nearly other things, the development of special-purpose Māori 70,000 enrolments. This number had fallen to less than television. The Crown accepted that ‘the Maori language 43,000 in 2009. and culture were taonga, and hence entitled to the pro- The rise of wānanga also led to a massive increase in tection of the Crown in accordance with article 2 of the the number of students in te reo Māori courses at tertiary Treaty’. The High Court accepted the Crown’s undertak- level, which peaked in 2003 at 36,356 learners. However, ings and allowed the transfer of television assets.76 this number had dropped to 16,934 by 2007.73 Other developments of note in Māori language education include the 1999 incorporation of the kura kau- Piripi Walker (right) and Tama Te Huki in the studio of Wellington papa Māori guiding philosophy, ‘Te Aho Matua’, into the Maori language radio station Te Upoko o te Ika, on the day it started education Act. After complaints from the Hoani Waititi broadcasting in 1987. Mr Walker gave evidence to the Tribunal in 2006 kura kaupapa, it was also agreed in 2001 that ERO would on behalf of Ngāti Koata. apply the principles of Te Aho Matua to assess the deliv- ery of education in kura kaupapa.74 More recently, the Ministry of education has launched its Māori education strategy for 2008 to 2012, Ka Hikitia – Managing for Success, in April 2008, and its Māori-medium curricu- lum, Te Marautanga o Aotearoa, in September the same year. For a number of years now, the Ministry has also reported annually on Māori education in its publication series entitled Ngā Haeata Mātauranga. There have been a range of measures to attract and retain Māori-speaking teachers, the development of more Māori language teaching resources, partnerships between the Ministry and iwi organisations, and so on.

5.3.7 Developments in broadcasting The first major development in Māori broadcasting in the post-te reo Māori report era was radio station Te upoko o te Ika receiving funding in 1987 as a pilot for the introduction of a network of Māori radio stations around the country. Other stations began operating with State funding the following year. In 1989, when the Crown amended the Broadcasting Act 1976 in order to create new State-owned enterprises, the New Zealand Māori Council and Ngā Kaiwhaka- pūmau i te Reo Māori filed proceedings in the High Court to stop the transfer of the assets. In May 1991, the High Court declined to grant relief in respect of radio assets but adjourned the claim over television assets to 400 Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Te Reo Māori 5.3.7

The lawyers acting for the New Zealand Māori Council in theBroadcasting Assets case about to enter the Downing Street, London, offices of the Privy Council in 1993. From left : Eugenie Laracy, Martin Dawson (who acted for Ngāti Koata in our inquiry), and Sian Elias (now the chief justice).

The New Zealand Māori Council and Ngā Kaiwhaka- to allocate them have had a major impact upon the pūmau i te Reo Māori appealed that decision – first to the amount and quality of Māori language broadcast content. Court of Appeal and then to the Privy Council.77 each In 1996, the Crown set up a joint Crown–Māori work- court dismissed the appeal, but the Privy Council empha- ing party on Māori broadcasting. From 1996 to 1997, the sised the previous undertakings the Crown had given to Aotearoa Māori Television Network was piloted in the the courts. The Privy Council also stressed that, given the Auckland region. In 1998, the Government agreed to the ‘vulnerable state’ of te reo, the Crown might well need to establishment of a Māori television trust (Te Awhiorangi), ‘take especially vigorous action for its protection’.78 which in 1999 presented its business case to ministers. In response to this litigation, the Crown amended That year’s change of Government, however, led to a delay the Broadcasting Act in 1993 and established Te Māngai while the new administration considered its options. Pāho to fund Māori language and culture broadcasting. In 2000, responsibility for Māori broadcasting was This was a hugely significant step, for the size of the funds transferred from the Ministry of Commerce to Te Puni available to Te Māngai Pāho and how the agency chooses Kōkiri, which invited a group of Māori broadcasters to 401 Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz 5.3.8 Ko Aotearoa Tēnei : Te Taumata Tuarua make recommendations on Māori broadcasting. This led ӹ Proficiency standards for public servants (as meas- to Cabinet deciding in 2001 to establish a Māori televi- ured by the public sector Māori language proficiency sion service. The Māori Television Service Act came into examination). force in May 2003 and Māori Television finally went to air ӹThe ‘Language Line’ translation service. on 28 March 2004. A second, Māori language-only chan- ӹ Bilingual forms for key citizenship documents, the nel, Te Reo (available only on the digital network), was census, and so on. launched in March 2008. ӹ Some departmental Māori language planning and Te Māngai Pāho provides operational funding for the use (often in the form of translation of key docu- Māori Television Service and the network of 21 iwi radio ments and Māori versions of agency titles). Further stations as well as contestable funding for television pro- uptake is promoted and encouraged by Te Taura gramming and other funding for radio programmes Whiri. and Māori language music. The television programming ӹ Te reo Māori versions of important publications funded is mainly screened on Māori Television but also such as Dictionary of New Zealand Biography vol- includes several Television New Zealand (TVNZ) pro- umes and ‘Te Ara’, the online encyclopaedia. grammes such as Te Karere, Waka Huia, and Marae, as ӹSome increases in Māori signage. well as the occasional programme aired on TV3.79 ӹ Māori versions of place names being recognised for The State broadcasters (TVNZ and Radio New Zealand) use by New Zealand Post. have charter agreements with ministers that require them ӹ Simultaneous translations in recent years at Waitangi to promote Māori language and culture – although, as we Tribunal hearings (albeit not, ironically, in the Māori discuss in section 6.3.1, the Government will soon replace Land Court). the TVNZ charter with other provisions.80 Iwi radio sta- ӹ The availability, since 1997, of an interpreter for tions have Māori language content incentive bonuses. The speeches given in Māori in Parliament. Māori Television Act also sets out the requirements for the channel in terms of the scheduling of Māori language 5.3.9 Developments in community language support content. On the whole, however, the Crown has given the The Government has put in place a number of policies State broadcasters the leeway to choose how to interpret and practices that recognise the need for local-level lan- and fulfil their charter requirements, on the basis of pre- guage regeneration. serving what Te Puni Kōkiri described as the principle Key among them is Te Taura Whiri’s language planning of ‘arm’s length’ State involvement in the broadcasters’ services, which have been developing since 1995. These operations.81 are primarily for Māori communities but are also aimed at Government departments (see above) and the private sec- 5.3.8 Developments in public services and use tor. Te Taura Whiri offers support to communities, marae, The way the public sector uses and provides for te reo iwi, hapū, and whānau to build profiles of the amount Māori has developed since 1986. However, moves towards and quality of te reo being spoken within the community greater bilingualism in the public sector remain the pre- and to establish te reo plans for future growth. As part of rogative of each Government agency. the service, Te Taura Whiri offers language planning web examples of developments include the following : pages, workbooks, programmes, and so on. ӹ Services provided by Te Taura Whiri under the Since 2001, groups have been able to apply for Mā Te Maori Language Act (certification and registration Reo funding to support their community reo objectives of translators and interpreters). (such as holding wānanga and noho marae). The Mā ӹ The 1991 Maori Language Act amendment, which Te Reo fund was set up by Te Taura Whiri with a lim- slightly broadened settings where te reo Māori can ited lifespan, although the Crown told us that options be used (for example, in the Tenancy Tribunal). were being examined to allow it to continue beyond its

402 Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Te Reo Māori 5.3.9 , A New Zealand passport. Te reo Māori has been used on the passport’s inside pages since 1994 and on its cover since 2009. . Online encyclopaedia, ‘Te Ara’. The pages of ‘Te Ara’, as well as some Government services and information, are now offered in te reo Māori. . Newsreader Scotty Morrison preparing to present the twenty- fifth birthday edition ofTe Karere on a newly unveiled set at TVNZ’s central Auckland studios, February 2009

403 Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz 5.3.10(1) Ko Aotearoa Tēnei : Te Taumata Tuarua scheduled termination. However, its final funding round ran from March to May 2010.82 The fund’s size was $1.9 million annually.83 Money is also available to the Ministry of education’s iwi partners, on a four-year cycle, from the Ministry’s community-based language initiative fund, which we have already mentioned, and which was set up in 1999. The size of the fund in 2006 was $5.1 million over four years.84 Te Puni Kōkiri told us that the fund has been used Te Puni Kōkiri’s 2003 Māori Language Strategy, a key to support tribal dialects through such initiatives as tribal document in our inquiry. Its dictionaries, oral history projects recording kaumātua vision is for te reo to be ‘widely 85 speaking in tribal dialect, and so on. spoken’ by Māori by 2028. Meanwhile, Te Puni Kōkiri conducts surveys on the health of te reo and attitudes to it, and builds regional te reo profiles using survey and census data. These profiles below). Thus, in March 2003, Te Puni Kōkiri produced a can thus provide an approximate picture of the health discussion document about the Government’s proposed of tribal dialects by showing the number of older native major revision of the MLS, entitled A Shared Vision for speakers within particular districts. This information- the Future of Te Reo Māori. The document explained gathering by the Ministry provides valuable help to Māori that a Māori reference group had been established in groups in their planning. 2002 to ‘provide a basis for an ongoing relationship with Māori language stakeholders’. Membership of the refer- 5.3.10 TheMāori Language Strategy ence group included representatives of Māori broadcast- (1) Development ing organisations, Māori education organisations, gen- The key tool in the Crown’s process of setting a te reo eral Māori organisations, and officials from Government Māori agenda is the Māori Language Strategy (MLS). It departments.89 The reference group and Te Puni Kōkiri was first developed in 1997, in an attempt to bring some had collectively developed the outcome statements in the coordination to a sector that had evolved in a relatively discussion paper, and in early 2003 ‘a small focus group of unplanned way since the 1980s. In summary, its five over- kaumātua and language experts’ met to further refine the arching Māori language policy objectives were initially : discussion paper text.90 ӹ to increase the number of those who know the Māori Te Puni Kōkiri sought feedback from Māori on the language ; discussion paper by mail, email, phone, or attendance at ӹto improve proficiency levels in Māori ; one of 14 regional consultation hui held between 14 and ӹ to increase the number of situations in which Māori 28 March 2003. In his foreword to the published MLS, can be used ; the then Minister of Māori Affairs wrote that ‘The Māori ӹ to ensure the Māori language can be used for the full Language Strategy draws strongly on Māori thinking range of modern activities ; and about, and aspirations for, the Māori language. It has been ӹ to foster positive attitudes towards the language ‘so prepared with input from Māori language experts and that Māori-english bilingualism becomes a valued through community consultation.’91 part of New Zealand society’.86 The final MLS document was produced jointly by Te In 1999, the Government decided to revise the MLS Puni Kōkiri and Te Taura Whiri. Cabinet approved it after first undertaking research into the status of te reo in October 2003, and directed lead agencies to produce in New Zealand.87 A monitoring team was established to implementation plans by June 2004. The agencies were lead this work within Te Puni Kōkiri,88 which included to set five-year targets that would function as milestones the 2001 survey on the health of the Māori language (see towards the overall MLS targets (for 2028). As we will see 404 Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Te Reo Māori 5.3.10(3)(d) below, some of the outcomes set for language revival in ӹeducation opportunities in the Māori language ; the final MLS differed from those that appeared in the ӹcommunity leadership for the Māori language ; and discussion document. Presumably, officials made these ӹrecognition of the Māori language.95 changes in the course of obtaining Cabinet approval of the MLS goals. (3) How the MLS is implemented While an internal Crown review of the MLS began in Two of the 10 ‘functions of Government’ under the MLS 2008, the publication of a new version may initially have are shared between agencies, but each of the other eight been postponed because of the impending release of our is the sole responsibility of one lead agency. These func- report. As it transpired, however, on 29 July 2010 Minister tions, and the activies undertaken by the agencies, are of Māori Affairs Pita Sharples announced that a review described below.96 panel of Māori language experts headed by Tamati Reedy would undertake a complete review of the MLS in order (a) Māori language education ‘to ensure the programmes and expenditure across the The Māori language education function extends across whole of government are responsive to Iwi/Maori aspira- the early childhood sector, primary, and secondary t i o n s’. 92 We return to this review and the motivation for it schools, the tertiary sector and community education. It below. includes both Māori language immersion education and ‘Māori as a subject’ education. The planning and imple- (2) What the MLS says mentation of work in this area is allocated to the Ministry various agencies have responsibilities under the MLS, of education. including six lead agencies – Te Puni Kōkiri, Te Taura Whiri, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, the Ministry (b) Māori language broadcasting of education, the National Library, and Te Māngai Pāho. The Māori language broadcasting function involves sup- The 10 functions under the strategy (broadcasting, edu- porting the growth of te reo Māori by funding radio cation, policy development, provision of public services, and television broadcasting in the Māori language. The and so forth) are spread across the six agencies.93 Te Puni responsibility for Māori language broadcasting policy and Kōkiri is the overall lead agency, with responsibility for planning is allocated to Te Puni Kōkiri and the implemen- policy development, sector coordination, and the moni- tation of it to Te Māngai Pāho and the Māori Television toring of both Māori language health and the effective- Service. ness of agency activities. The MLS has a 25-year timeframe, recognising that sig- (c) Māori language arts nificant change in the use and knowledge of te reo Māori Support for Māori language arts covers activities such as will take a generation. Its overall vision is that : kapa haka, speech competitions and new writing in te reo. Responsibility for this function lies with the Ministry of By 2028, the Māori language will be widely spoken by Māori . Culture and Heritage, with input from other departments in particular, the Māori language will be in common use and from Māori organisations. within Māori whānau, homes and communities . All new Zealanders will appreciate the value of the Māori language to (d) Māori language services new Zealand society .94 The Māori language services function includes Govern- ment te reo services, lexical development, dictionary Supporting this vision are five goals. We examine these making, benchmarking of proficiency levels in the Māori in more detail later in this chapter, but in summary, they language and certification of translators and interpret- aim to strengthen : ers. Responsibility for this function lies with Te Taura ӹ language skills ; Whiri, reflecting its legislative mandate to undertake such ӹ language use ; functions. 405 Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz 5.3.10(3)(e) Ko Aotearoa Tēnei : Te Taumata Tuarua

‘More language schools’ Dominion Sunday Times, 10 november 1991

ovember 1989 ‘Rights to schooling in Maori asserted’ Dominion, 15 n

‘Revitalisation of Te Reo Maori’ Te Maori News, April 1994 ‘New life in the other mother tongue’‘Kura kaupapa opening realises dream’ Evening Post Te Maori News, June 1995 , 9 october 1995

Headlines from 1989 to 1995 showcasing the revival of te reo.

(e) Māori language archives effectiveness and efficiency of the Government’s Māori The Māori language archives function involves the col- language functions, as well as undertaking periodic stock- lection and maintenance of Māori language archives takes of Government Māori language programmes and (whether written, audio, or audio-visual). Responsibility services.97 Te Puni Kōkiri is responsible for this function. for this function sits with the National Library, with input from other Government agencies. (h) Public services provided in Māori The public services function relates to the official lan- (f) Māori language community planning guage status of te reo, and aims to ensure that all New The Māori language community planning function Zealanders can access public services through the Māori involves the provision of funding and advice about language. While each Government agency is responsible language planning for whānau, hapū, iwi and Māori. for developing its own internal Māori language plan, Te Responsibility sits with Te Taura Whiri, because of the Puni Kōkiri and Te Taura Whiri are responsible for plan- strong links to the administration of the agency’s Mā Te ning and implementing this work. Reo fund. (i) Māori language information (g) Māori language policy, coordination, and The Māori language information function involves sup- monitoring porting the regeneration of the language through the A coordination function is necessary in order to ensure provision of information. Recent examples have included a ‘whole-of-Government’ approach. This function also Māori language television and radio programmes, an involves monitoring the health of te reo Māori and the interactive website, an information kit for new parents, 406 Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Te Reo Māori 5.4.1 new phrase booklets, and reo events promoting Matariki. Soon after, the Maori Language Act 1987 made te reo Te Taura Whiri is responsible for this function. Māori an official language and established the Māori Language Commission (soon to be known as Te Taura (j) Whānau language development Whiri i te Reo Māori). Te reo could be used before The whānau language development function involves the courts but not, however, in any dealings with the trained mentors working on a one-to-one basis with par- Government. ticipating families to support intergenerational language In the two decades since the Maori Language Act was transmission. Responsibility for this function sits with Te passed, there have been many developments that have Taura Whiri. collectively formed the State’s modern Māori language policy. They include the expansion of Māori-medium 5.3.11 State funding for te reo Māori education, the growth of the wānanga, the establishment The State’s resourcing of te reo Māori was estimated at and funding of a network of iwi radio stations and the $177.9 million in 1999. By 2002, it had grown to $225 mil- Māori Television Service, the broadening of public ser- lion and, by 2006, to approximately $226.8 million.98 It vices in te reo Māori, the funding of community-based has been defined as resourcing both for ‘services and pro- language initiatives, and the development in 1997 of the grammes that [contribute] more or less directly to sup- first Māori language objectives to coordinate Government porting the health of the Māori language’ and for ‘activi- Māori language activities. ties that are being undertaken by . . . government agencies to support the growth and development of the Māori language’.99 The education sector accounts for the larg- 5.4 The Health of Te Reo in 2010 est share of this resourcing, with $132.8 million in 1999, We have outlined how the Crown’s present te reo policies $137.6 million in 2002, and approximately $142.3 million and programmes have developed. To determine whether in 2006. The second-biggest area of expenditure is Māori these are working, we must first assess the health of te reo language broadcasting. Money for Te Māngai Pāho, for Māori in 2010. example, increased from $22.2 million in 1999 to $49.1 There are a number of gauges to measure this, notably million in 2002 and $49.8 million in 2006.100 the participation in Māori-medium education and the learning of Māori as a subject in the mainstream school 5.3.12 Conclusion system, as well as the results of various surveys and cen- After decades of active suppression or, at best, ‘benign suses over the last 15 or so years.101 The Crown submitted neglect’, te reo Māori had reached a perilous state by the evidence about all these matters, both during the hear- 1970s, with very few younger speakers. ings and after, as new material came to hand. That said, Against that background, Māori initiatives to protect we did not actively canvass a number of the issues we and revive the language began in the 1970s and 1980s. address here during our inquiry, and did not hear from They included petitions, a Māori radio station, the first key interested parties, such as the Kōhanga Reo National kura kaupapa Māori, and – most importantly of all – the Trust. While our conclusions must remain provisional, birth of the kōhanga reo movement in 1982 and its subse- therefore, we nevertheless set out the following observa- quent spectacular growth. tions because – as explained earlier – having considered Meanwhile, in its 1986 Report on the Te Reo Maori these issues, and being convinced of their relevance to the Claim, the Waitangi Tribunal recommended that te reo be matters at hand, it would be wrong of us not to do so. made an official language, that a Māori language commission be established, that the education system and broad- 5.4.1 Early childhood education casting policy support the Māori language, and that any- As we saw in the previous section, Māori enrolments in one who wished to do so be enabled to speak in Māori in kōhanga reo reached their peak in 1993, when half of all the courts or when dealing with any public bodies. Māori in early childhood education were at kōhanga. But 407 Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz 5.4.1 Ko Aotearoa Tēnei : Te Taumata Tuarua the percentage of Māori pre-schoolers at kōhanga and rise and then steady fall of kōhanga reo. The Ministry the overall number of children attending kōhanga has of education’s publications show that it is clearly aware since fallen practically each successive year. The number of the problem. For example, its 2007 draft of Ka Hikitia of kōhanga themselves has likewise declined every year stated that the falling number of kōhanga was a ‘challenge’ without exception since 1994. Thus, in 2009 there were and an issue that ‘needs further investigation’.105 464 kōhanga reo and a further 27 puna kōhungahunga It seems that Māori began leaving the kōhanga reo (otherwise known as ‘puna reo’), which are essentially movement in the mid-1990s for a number of reasons. parent-led Māori playgroups in which te reo is used as One was probably that more Māori were in paid work, much as possible. Less than a quarter of all Māori at pre- meaning more parents opting for all-day care or care school attended one of these services, with a total student where they were not expected to play such a significant number at them of 9,565 (only 277 of whom were at puna role. (The numbers of all children in kindergartens and reo).102 At the same time, the number of Māori children playcentres has also declined since 1996, for probably the attending any form of early childhood education rose by same sorts of reasons. Instead, the real growth has come 27 per cent. In other words, kōhanga today have a much in licensed ‘education and care’ services.) smaller share of a much larger market (see tables 5.1 and Another factor has doubtless been the dwindling num- 5.2 and figure 5.5).103 ber of older Māori speakers in rural communities and If the 1993 rate of Māori participation in kōhanga had urban neighbourhoods. Observers have said it was these been maintained, the number of tamariki at kōhanga reo people who made the spectacular growth of kōhanga reo would have increased to 18,300 by 2008. In reality, in that possible.106 There have also been some concerns expressed year the enrolment at kōhanga was only 9,200, including by individual kōhanga about the centralised autonomy of 8,700 Māori children – 9,600 fewer Māori children than the Kōhanga Reo National Trust, although we are in no there would have been had the 1993 share been main- position to gauge the strength of that feeling. In any event, tained (see figure 5.3).104 we are aware of a good deal of loyalty to the trust’s cen- The decline in kōhanga reo attendance may be having tralised model. We return to this later in the chapter (see an impact on the number of pre-schoolers competent in section 5.5.6(3)(d)). te reo. After adjustments for those too young to speak or In fairness, there have also been some concerns about for whom no answer was provided, census results show the quality of teaching. A perennial problem has been the that the proportion of those in the Māori ethnic group paucity of good early childhood teachers who are also aged from zero to four who were reported as being able skilled in te reo, a dilemma acknowledged by the National to speak te reo dropped from 21.9 per cent in 1996 to 18.2 Trust leadership itself. ERO reviews in the 1990s showed per cent in 2006. A drop-off can also be observed in the that the quality of teaching and even the use of te reo at figures for the five to nine year age group, which declined many kōhanga was distinctly lacking. Similarly, con- from 22.1 per cent in 1996 to 18.8 per cent in 2006 (see cerns about child safety and financial mismanagement at table 5.9). various kōhanga have commanded a good deal of media Of course, it remains possible that the kōhanga that attention.107 have fallen by the wayside were those did not have com- In 2007, kōhanga largely missed out on the Gov ern- petent te reo speakers in charge of them, and were there- ment’s introduction of its promised 20 free hours of early fore not making much impact on the census statistics. childhood education at centres with registered teachers. even so, the drop in the number of kōhanga is such that The scheme did not necessarily exclude kōhanga, but there must have been at least some where the children required them to have qualified teachers.108 In late 2007, were being well taught. The census decline does appear to the Ministry of education extended the policy to kōhanga match the decline in kōhanga participation, in any event where at least one teacher had the National Trust’s (see figure 5.4). ‘Whaka pa kari’ teaching qualification, but still only a What we are seeing, therefore, is a quite spectacular quarter of the country’s kōhanga reo could take advantage 408 Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Te Reo Māori 5.4.1 Table 5.3 : Te reo-oriented early childhood education, 1989–2009 – student and centre numbers

Year Number of Number Number of Students at Students Students at Total Total Total Total te kōhanga of licence- puna reo kōhanga at licence- puna reo kōhanga te reo- kōhanga reo-oriented exempt exempt oriented students ECE centre kōhanga kōhanga ECE centres students

1989 470 — — 8,724 — — 470 470 8,724 8,724 1990 616 — — 10,108 — — 616 616 10,108 10,108 1991 630 — — 10,451 — — 630 630 10,451 10,451 1992 719 — — 12,617 — — 719 719 12,617 12,617 1993 809 — — 14,514 — — 809 809 14,514 14,514 1994 773 46 — 12,508 1,035 — 819 819 13,543 13,543 1995 738 36 — 14,015 248 — 774 774 14,263 14,263 1996 704 63 — 13,279 1,023 — 767 767 14,302 14,302 1997 675 30 — 13,104 401 — 705 705 13,505 13,505 1998 613 33 — 11,689 361 — 646 646 12,050 12,050 1999 600 50 — 11,859 524 — 650 650 12,383 12,383 2000 583 29 — 11,138 381 — 612 612 11,519 11,519 2001 562 24 20 9,594 214 — 586 606 9,808 10,017 2002 545 14 24 10,389 138 351 559 583 10,527 10,878 2003 526 12 32 10,319 130 408 538 570 10,449 10,857 2004 513 13 43 10,418 191 580 526 569 10,609 11,189 2005 501 11 49 10,070 146 519 512 561 10,216 10,735 2006 486 8 41 9,493 89 289 494 535 9,582 9,871 2007 470 7 30 9,236 69 343 477 507 9,305 9,648 2008 467 3 32 9,165 43 454 470 502 9,208 9,662 2009 464 0 27 9,288 0 277 464 491 9,288 9,565

Note that there are other early childhood education centres where te reo is used as a language of instruction besides kōhanga reo and puna reo. For example, in 2009 11 licensed ‘Māori immersion services’ other than kōhanga reo used te reo more than 80 per cent of the time, and a further 634 used te reo 12 to 80 per cent of the time. However, these centres are not readily identifiable within the statistics, and their numbers are not consistently available over time. We thus restrict ‘te reo-oriented ECE centres’ to kōhanga reo (both licensed and licence-exempt) and puna reo.

of this. More recently, the new Government announced Finally, it is possible that momentum has been going in May 2009 it would extend the policy to all kōhanga reo out of the kōhanga movement. The sense of urgency that from July 2010, regardless of whether they were teacher- propelled such explosive growth may now have been or parent-led.109 replaced by complacency about te reo’s revival – ironically, 409 Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz 5.4.1 Ko Aotearoa Tēnei : Te Taumata Tuarua Table 5.4 : Te reo-oriented early childhood education by percentage, 1989–2009

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Māori students in ECE . . . . . 19,557 22,419 21,705 24,342 28,503 28,952 29,856 30,323 30,703 29,698 32,037 32,255 31,026 32,779 33,892 35,232 35,756 35,000 35,618 37,122 N/A

Māori students at kōhanga ...... 8,603 10,007 9615 11,401 14,027 12,415 13,600 13,028 12,955 11,619 11,545 11,021 9,532 10,365 10,309 10,409 10,062 9,480 8,679 8,683 8,829

Total students at kōhanga ...... 8,724 10,108 10,451 12,617 14,514 12,508 14,015 13,279 13,104 11,689 11,859 11,138 9,594 10,389 10,319 10,418 10,070 9,493 9,236 9,165 9,288

Māori students at kōhanga (%) ...... 98.6 99.0 92.0 90.4 96.6 99.3 97.0 98.1 98.9 99.4 97.4 98.9 99.4 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 94.0 94.7 95.1

Māori students at licence- exempt kōhanga ...... — — — — — 1030 239 1004 398 361 508 376 211 138 130 191 146 88 64 39 0

Total students at licence- exempt kōhanga ...... — — — — — 1035 248 1023 401 361 524 381 214 138 130 191 146 89 69 43 0

Māori students at licence- exempt kōhanga (%) . . . . . — — — — — 99.5 96.4 98.1 99.3 100 96.9 98.9 98.6 100 100 100 100 98.9 92.8 90.1 0

Māori students at puna reo ...... —————————— — — 167 310 354 455 448 243 263 339 N/A

Total students at puna reo ...... —————————— — — 209 351 408 580 519 289 343 454 277

Māori students at puna reo (%) ...... —————————— — — 79.9 88.3 86.8 78.4 86.3 84.1 76.7 74.7 N/A

Māori students at all te reo oriented ECE (%) ...... 98.6 99.0 92.0 90.4 96.6 99.3 97.0 98.1 98.9 99.4 97.3 98.9 98.9 99.4 99.4 98.8 99.3 99.4 93.3 93.8 N/A

All Māori in ECE at kōhanga (%) ...... 44.0 44.6 44.3 46.8 49.2 42.9 45.6 43.0 42.2 39.1 36.0 34.2 30.7 31.6 30.4 29.5 28.1 27.1 24.4 23.4 N/A

All Māori in ECE at licence- exempt kōhanga (%) . . . . . — — — — — 3.6 0.8 3.3 1.3 1.2 1.6 1.2 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0

Māori in ECE at puna reo (%) . —————————— — — 0.5 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.9 N/A

Māori in ECE at te reo oriented centres (%) . . . . . 44.0 44.6 44.3 46.8 49.2 46.4 46.4 46.3 43.5 40.3 37.6 35.3 31.9 33.0 31.8 31.4 29.8 28.0 25.3 24.4 N/A

Again, we restrict ‘te reo-oriented ECE centres’ to kōhanga reo (both licensed and licence-exempt) and puna reo. Note that 2009 data were not available for licence-exempt services, although we do know there were in 2009 no licence-exempt kōhanga and there were 277 children at puna reo.

410 Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Te Reo Māori 5.4.1 Table 5.4 : Te reo-oriented early childhood education by percentage, 1989–2009